/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12798421]

Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are blatant lies and mystical&esoterical mathematical garbage.

Quantum means more in pic related dishwasher tablet brand than with word "mechanics".

QM is just a mathematical hand waving and usage of complex sinusoids, horribly wrong. The main idea is just that particle(s) are discrete things, but some autist thinks they are something nobody can locate precisely and only thing to describe them is probability theory. Quantum wave? That probability function divided by it's "complex" (NOT a NUMBER) conjugate.

To relativity theory. Lol. Some stupid change of coordinates should be a physical explanation? NONSENSE. It changes nothing. It is just a mathematical trick. HAHAHHA, this has fooled imbesil physicist and mathfags and so on over 100 years. Sad, if you think these people susposed to be the smartes on the planet...

[Anonymous No.12798434]

>>12798421
>It changes nothing.
That's the point

[Anonymous No.12798439]

As an aside, that particular dishwashing detergent works really well. It will probably end up causing cancer but your dishes do get clean.

[Anonymous No.12798447]

>>12798434

So why the use of the coordinate change? Why not explain things in lab frame and only that
>>12798439
I use the regular powerball and rinse most important dishes with pure water just in case of traces

[Anonymous No.12798546]

>>12798421
Einstein invented this nonsense to account for the fact nobody could prove the earth is moving. And a friendly Jesuit probably helped him and added the premises to field equations to arrive at the big bang model. It’s mathematical nonsense to stop smart people from asking the right questions. It was always completely agenda driven from the start.

[Anonymous No.12798592]

>>12798447
>So why the use of the coordinate change?
Because if you know that a certain thing has to be the same in two coordinate systems, you know how the coordinates have to change

[Anonymous No.12798715]

>>12798592
But they are not the same. They just act the same. If, in your world, apples fit to your hand, and in their world their apples fits their hands, are you certain you could hold their apples?

[Anonymous No.12798785]

>>12798715
That's the stupidest thing I've read today.

[Anonymous No.12798810]

Consistently banning schizo threads when?

[Anonymous No.12798820]

>>12798785
Yet the most brilliant.

Imagine a limousine car, travelling fast. It could fit your carage.

Now chage the limousine with "their apple" and your carage with "your hand".

[Anonymous No.12798847]

The only explanation for various particle accelerator observations is QM

[Anonymous No.12798864]

>>12798810
Yes, let's call a guy, that has thought relativity theory past 17 years, a schizo. Nobody can challenge my professor or Einstein!

You are like paper money. Printed nicely on that, but in the end of the day, it's value vanishes to nothing.

[Anonymous No.12798888]

>>12798421
>the main idea is just that particle(s) are discrete things
no it's not. nothing in the math of quantum mechanics, specifically the wavefunction, says it has to be discrete. discreteness only appears when you enforce some kind of boundary conditions such as when confine a particle such within an atom. Conversely a free particle can have a continuous energy range (e.g. E = hf).

[Anonymous No.12798906]

>>12798820
>Special Relativity 101 was too complicated for me so I've decided physics is wrong
Consistently banning retard threads when?

[Anonymous No.12798912]

>>12798888
Further proves my point of QM vague hand waving.

My friend showed me a random generator of scientifical articles. An article of QM could have been one of producted articles. Absolute bullshit

[Anonymous No.12798927]

>>12798906
>age old argument: "you must be too stupid to understand"
Actually, too intelligent to eat all bullshit some retard has written over 100 years ago. Can't you see, a coordinate transformation is unnecessary. Absolutely no reason to change the coordinates to explain things.

[Anonymous No.12798943]

>>12798912
No it proves you're a moron with no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.12798948]

>>12798912
>I don't understand QM therefore it's bullshit
see: >>12798906

[Anonymous No.12798968]

>>12798943
I know. I proof it by a question. Answer this: what is the philosophical thinking process that leads to Schrödingers equation?

[Anonymous No.12798980]

>>12798906
As if special relativity is too complicated. It’s high school level maths. He just disagrees and there is good reason to do so. We already have models of equal or greater explanatory power and we know it doesn’t account for much of what we can see above us. It all boils down to claims about optical clocks and satellites. While despite contrary claims much of the radar and optical astronomy isn’t explained.

[Anonymous No.12799012]

>>12798421
QFT is provable in your own home. Matter isn't discreet, each subatomic element is fluctuations in its own field. Some are related to matter, others forces. But...

https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model
>...it is not time for physicists to call it a day just yet. Even though the Standard Model is currently the best description there is of the subatomic world, it does not explain the complete picture. [...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

[Anonymous No.12799033]

>>12799012
>it does not explain the complete picture
Well, if it would, I would not be making this thread.

Physics is far from complete. There are many models, some of them somewhat fundamental, for example fuild dynamics are pretty well thought. But what happens in subatomic level? Nobody knows but con-men gets the money from their wild theories.

[Anonymous No.12799051]

>>12799012
Srsly, are you purposely trying to make me angry, this con-boy says perioidic table is silly (gay-laughter) and looks like Australia?

[Anonymous No.12799056]

>>12798980
>As if special relativity is too complicated. It’s high school level maths. He just disagrees and there is good reason to do so.
He disagrees because he doesn't understand it, it has nothing to do with legitimate scientific questioning. Asking about high school tier paradoxes doesn't play in his favor.
>While despite contrary claims much of the radar and optical astronomy isn’t explained.
What do you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12799075]

>>12799033
>But what happens in subatomic level? Nobody knows
We have been making successful predictions using quantum theory for 100 years. And it's been past the stage of thought experiments for about as long: photoelectric effect was the first thing, but if you care more about everyday life then try to explain how a transistor works without using QM.
Just because popsci portrays QM as this mysterious and incomprehensible theory doesn't mean we're still struggling to understand how it works.

[Anonymous No.12799076]

>>12799056
Why wouldn't I understand it? Have you even read Einstein's or Lorentz' original papers?

The true explanation is simple, as electrons goes faster and faster, less light passes to another on their side.

But, a retard like you would never understand. You are a parrot that has been programmed by a professor making money out of your student loan.

[Parsley No.12799094]

>>12799033
You stated that QT is considering matter to be discrete which paints you as very ignorant. You should study further than the first round of QT before you try to troll /sci/. This thread is just brainlet-tier whining.

[Anonymous No.12799104]

>>12799075
Question, also to you, to bite: Answer this: what is the philosophical thinking process that leads to Schrödingers equation?

Photoelectric effect. Photon knocks one electron out of orbit. Sounds heavily classical to me.

Transistor. Voltage/Current alter the electrical mesh so others can pass through. Like a pioneer. Like I.

[Anonymous No.12799118]

>>12799094
Lol, the name-faggot comes to thread to cry.

I will not study anything hand waving shit theory any further. If you take complex wave equation, namely Scrödinger's, as an axiom, every fucking thing is as hand waving as it is.

[Anonymous No.12799121]

>>12799076
>Have you even read Einstein's or Lorentz' original papers?
I don't speak German or Dutch. I have read some of Einstein's papers in English if that's worth anything. Lorentz's results can be mathematically derived fairly easily so I never bothered
>The true explanation is simple, as electrons goes faster and faster, less light passes to another on their side.
What explanation are you talking about here?

[Anonymous No.12799137]

>>12799121
>What explanation are you talking about here?
The explanation of what happens to forces between particles as they move

[Anonymous No.12799150]

>>12799104
>Photoelectric effect. Photon knocks one electron out of orbit. Sounds heavily classical to me.
Now explain why the electrons don't get more energy when you increase the energy of the incoming photons.
>Transistor. Voltage/Current alter the electrical mesh so others can pass through.
How about some more details about this "electrical mesh"? How does a semi-conductor work?

[Anonymous No.12799188]

>>12799150
I can accept that photons are particles. I can accept it. The particle-thinking is the best part of quantum mechanics and should have stayed on that level. After the probability complex wave, it was ruined.

I just call it a mesh. You know, there are protons and there are electrons and the electron configuration pretty much says it's resistivity. Why couldnt there be a configuration that changes resistivity due current? I cannot understand why not. No need for this hand waving complex-wave

[Anonymous No.12799195]

>>12799104
>Sounds heavily classical to me.
That's for pedagogical reasons. Most people can't grasp how different fields interact.

Picrel is a Feynman diagram.

[Anonymous No.12799203]

>>12799056
>high school tier paradoxes
Which one and where?
>What do you mean by this?
Basic stuff. But even wikipedia is good enough to start from there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_astronomy
Special relativity isn’t really helpful.

[Anonymous No.12799207]

>>12799195
Don't burn my eyes with that. SHOOOOO

Can't you see they are going backwars in time??

[Anonymous No.12799222]

>>12799150
>Now explain why the electrons don't get more energy when you increase the energy of the incoming photons.

But they do. Just put higher frequency and you get more energetic particles

[Anonymous No.12799235]

>>12799203
If you are a specialist you would probably know, but just in case
https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2243
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2010/today10-06-18_readmore.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1150
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4620

[Anonymous No.12799239]

>>12799188
>I can accept that photons are particles. I can accept it. The particle-thinking is the best part of quantum mechanics and should have stayed on that level. After the probability complex wave, it was ruined.
Photons are particles and light behaves as a wave. It works for other particles as well, so you need something to describe this wave behavior mathematically: it's a wavefunction. We made it complex because it is extremely helpful with calculations, but the wavefunction itself doesn't correspond to anything physical.
Square it and you get a probability amplitude: what is the probability that your photon is here, or if you have enough of them, what is the intensity of light at this point. Other observables are eigenvalues of various quantum operators, a bunch of stuff that doesn't mean much physically but when you look at the number that comes out at the end you get extremely accurate predictions that no other approach match.

[Anonymous No.12799258]

>>12799203
>Which one and where?
Here >>12798820 he mentioned the length contraction paradox: how can a moving train (length contracted) fit in a station shorter than its rest length, or your favorite variation.
>Basic stuff. But even wikipedia is good enough to start from there.
Special relativity isn't the answer to the Universe. The fact we can't explain everything doesn't have much to do with whether relativity is right or not. This list would be hundreds of items longer if we didn't have all the theories built using the basic postulates of relativity.

[Anonymous No.12799282]

>>12799222
Yeah, I phrased that wrong. Keep the frequency of the individual photons identical but fire more of them, classically this should give higher energy electrons. Electron energy depending only on the light frequency means that light must be quantized.

[Anonymous No.12799285]

>>12798864
>Nobody can challenge my professor or Einstein!
Feel free to do so. Nobody says you can't, schizo. The problem is you've got nothing but empty phrases.

>You are like paper money. Printed nicely on that, but in the end of the day, it's value vanishes to nothing.
You see these meds? You're supposed to take them every day.

[Anonymous No.12799291]

>>12799239
>Photons are particles and light behaves as a wave
Hydrogen oxide molecules are particles and water begaves as a wave, your point was?
>We made it complex because it is extremely helpful with calculations
Laziness, sad laziness
>probability, nothing much physical, output tells something
Maybe there is a missing thought in the process? I bet there is and it will someday open to someones, and they laugh at us, so much they laugh.

[Anonymous No.12799311]

>>12799285
>The problem is you've got nothing but empty phrases.
But I have. THOUGHT EXPERIEMENT!: Two electrons goes side by side with speed v. They are distance R apart. WHERE SHOULD THE OTHER ELECTRON SHOOT IT'S PHOTONS SO THEY WOULD HIT THE OTHER ELECTRON?!

Dont you see. Calculate the ANGLE and say its SECANT . No body ever understood. Its too simple.

[Anonymous No.12799351]

>>12799291
>Hydrogen oxide molecules are particles and water begaves as a wave, your point was?
Individual water molecules don't behave as a liquid, you need a bunch of them and they need to interact. And water waves don't involve transfer of matter only energy: having waves at the surface of the water isn't the same as water molecules themselves behaving as waves. Photons, electrons and other particles are actual particules that propagate like waves.
>Laziness, sad laziness
We have a problem, we have a mathematical way to solve this problem that isn't extremely complicated and the solution we get is extremely accurate; where's the problem? There is no "missing thought" when you have a problem, get the parameters and use well-known formulas to obtain a solution that you can verify.
Science is about finding theories to make accurate predictions, the absolute truth (if such a thing exists) is known only to God or whatever you believe in. The best we can do is test these theories in edge cases to find where they break down and get hints at what the next layer is. Newtonian mechanics work well until you approach the speed of light, special relativity works well until you get close to heavy objects, general relativity works well until you consider extreme cases where you need to use it at very small scales (eg black holes). One day hopefull we'll find something better than general relativity, but that doesn't mean GR or SR are wrong, they are approximations of a currently intractable reality, very good ones as long as you know their limits.

[Anonymous No.12799360]

>>12799351
See the upper post. Calculate it. Let us exhange the results. I have calculated it already.

[Anonymous No.12799375]

>>12799258
>mentioned the length contraction paradox: how can a moving train (length contracted) fit in a station shorter than its rest length,
How isn’t it valid explain please.
>Special relativity isn't the answer to the Universe
I know and we have evidence pilling up it’s not even correct.
>we can’t explain things doesn’t show it’s wrong
Show me prove of a perfect vacuum. The theory is hypothetical nonsense. The list leads to phenomena contradicting it and I posted three papers specifically. Here
>>12799235
>built using the basic postulates of relativity
You are confusing it with general relativity. And even that’s not true.

[Anonymous No.12799381]

>>12799360
My result is 90° (that is directly at the other electron). The two electrons are stationary relative to each other, the photon just has to be fired by the first electron directly towards the second electron.
This problem has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

[Anonymous No.12799399]

>>12799381
That differs from my results... how could it ever hit the another, if it moves away. Photon has the speed of light, which is finite..

[Anonymous No.12799427]

If you guys just ignore this thread OP might get his GED

[Anonymous No.12799443]

>>12799427
Imagine the language of science is english. The most utter bullshit of them all. I wish germans won WWII. I really do.

[Anonymous No.12799450]

>>12799443
>I wish germans won WWII. I really do.
Me too anon, me too.

[Anonymous No.12799459]

I just prooved that lorentz' gamma is actually my secant and you just stand there. Where are you, where?!

[Anonymous No.12799461]

>>12799375
>How isn’t it valid explain please.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
>I know and we have evidence pilling up it’s not even correct.
It is correct as long as you know its limits. A car works well as a car but poorly as a submarine, that doesn't mean you have to throw away your car, just know that driving under the sea is beyond its limits. Special relativity works very well in simple cases, otherwise you need more complex theories, for example general relativity.
>Show me prove of a perfect vacuum.
I can't, there's no such thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
>The theory is hypothetical nonsense.
A theory is not hypothetical nonsense if you have made accurate predictions with it. Many theories are built using the principles of relativity and have been used to made good predictions.
>The list leads to phenomena contradicting it and I posted three papers specifically.
These phenomena don't contradict it. Just because a theory doesn't describe the absolute truth doesn't mean it's wrong. The Standard Model of particle physics is extremely accurate in many cases; neutrinos is one sector where it breaks down, so we are actively looking at them to try to find out more. The fact neutrinos are poorly understood doesn't mean we can't use the Standard Model in other places where it works. The car works as a car, not a submarine.
>You are confusing it with general relativity.
I am not. Quantum field theories, of which QED is an example, are built combining principles of quantum mechanics and special relativity (more preciselt Lorentz invariance). General relativity describes the geometry of spacetime, today we still don't know how to combine QFTs and GR, "relativity" and "general relativity" are very different.
>And even that’s not true.
And yet more and more tests validate it as time passes. From Mercury's orbit precession to gravitational waves, GR has been extremely successful so far.

[Anonymous No.12799470]

>>12799399
>>12799459
If you and your friend are in a train and want to throw a ball at your friend, you aim it at him, there's no need to account for the speed of the train because you, him and the ball are moving along with it.
It's the same here, the electrons are not moving relative to each other so they just need to fire their photons at each other. No need to involve relativity.

[Anonymous No.12799498]

>>12799470
No. The ball has already the speed of your hand. Light doesn't add to anything. It just goes with c.

Don't go with the electrons, even mentally. We are at lab. You aren't as fast as electron.
pic: me flammening stupid american soldiers in '43

[Anonymous No.12799547]

>>12799461
>ladder paradox
I couldn’t see any scientific data there.
>special relativity works until it doesn’t
I know pretty strange for a theory claiming to know it all.
>general relativity solves it
Except it doesn’t. There isn’t any good prove of gravity at all. All the effects can be explained by electromagnetic forces.
>I can't, there's no such thing
Really shows the theory to be lacking quiet a bit.
>Just because a theory doesn't describe the absolute truth doesn't mean it's wrong.
But it’s useless and doesn’t explain anything in the laboratory or on earth which couldn’t be explained otherwise.
It contradicts QM on top of it.
>From Mercury's orbit precession to gravitational waves, GR has been extremely successful so far.
You are with at GR again. I don’t see much support for the gravitational waves and I haven’t really looked into the Mercury orbit predictions, but I will.

[Anonymous No.12799549]

In Einstein-Lorentz transformations, 90 degree is not really 90 degrees in regular worldview.

SO, it happens I was right, you were wrong, these two gentleman was somewhat wrong, somewhat right. Now bow to me

[Anonymous No.12799563]

>>12799461
>>12799547
You get that they had to invent the dark matter and energy or else gravity doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous No.12799580]

Look at this monkey! Can't even translate backwards in time LOL.
>>12799207

[Anonymous No.12799594]

>>12799580
I said backwars...

the flashbacks...

You don't know what it takes to build a critical mass of uranium in czecho-slovakian forest lab when russian politruk-lead armies walk over your bunkers.

[Anonymous No.12799947]

>>12798421
unironically great dishwasher soap pods

[Anonymous No.12800991]

>>12799311
>Calculate the ANGLE and say its SECANT
In which coordinate system?
>WHERE SHOULD THE OTHER ELECTRON SHOOT IT'S PHOTONS SO THEY WOULD HIT THE OTHER ELECTRON?!
That's not an obtainable information, unless you don't care about the momenta. Then it's easy.
>EXPERIEMENT!:
>Dont you see.
>No body
Schizo.

[Anonymous No.12801275]

>>12800991
In the lab coordinate system.

At least this "schizo" did not fail his geometry exams.

You think about momenta and other too far consepts in a simple question. Clear schizo sign. Take your meds. Less computer more breathable air to you. Schizo.

[Anonymous No.12801295]

>>12801275
>consepts
>I'm not schizo you're schizo
Anon, seriously, these are sign that you develop mental problems, likely schizophrenia or a psychosis. Did you smoke a lot of weed before these symptoms manifested?

[Anonymous No.12801336]

>>12801295
Do you faggot not understand I am not american? Go eat some flame burned, carsinogenic, brain melting, fatty burgers at the Burger King.

Clearly I made a simple geometrical problem and you cannot answer it. The photon carries the momentum. But as it goes with speed c and only that, you only need to find the angle. Clearly it is too much on a task for an ameriburger.

[Anonymous No.12801344]

>>12801336
>Clearly I made a simple geometrical problem and you cannot answer it
People probably just don't care enough to figure out what you meant to ask.

[Anonymous No.12801365]

>>12801344
Just a and sec(a).

Image: P. Harris of University of Sussex with my markings on green.

[Anonymous No.12801464]

>>12801336
>Do you faggot
Why the homophobia?
>I am not american
Me neither.
>Go eat some flame burned, carsinogenic, brain melting, fatty burgers at the Burger King.
Go fuck yourself.
>Clearly I made a simple geometrical problem
No, it's neither simple nor geometric.
>you cannot answer it
I already did.

>>12801365
Electrons don't work like that. Also, which reference frame?

[Anonymous No.12801484]

>>12801464
>No, it's neither simple nor geometric.
It is, if you would stop smelling your farts and think
>Electrons don't work like that
You are unable to tell, with your lack of skill in geometry
>Also, which reference frame?
Lab, lab and lab.

[Anonymous No.12801590]

>>12801464
It is always an electron which emits the light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcPJMNSk3Qk

[Anonymous No.12801621]

>>12801484
>It is,
Wrong.
>stop smelling your farts
Stop smoking weed.
>You are unable to tell
No, I know perfectly well they don't behave like idealistic rigid bodies.
>lack of skill in geometry
This is not a geometric problem (although technically, its solution is formulated in terms of differential geometry).
>Lab, lab and lab.
Then you image already shows the problem with that.

>>12801590
I know how lasers work. It's irrelevant to your original problem. You seem more and more schizo to me. Are you Gabor?

[Anonymous No.12801643]

>>12801621
Differential geometry is geometry with differentials. You are just complete imbesil and think differential geometry and theory of relativity to be in some kind of separate theories in another dimension than ancient greek geometry.

>Then you image already shows the problem with that.
Are you saying P. Harris' image in problematic? Perhaps you should be less in women studies and study mathematics and logic more.

There is a clear angle in that image and I want you to calculate it and its secant before we go any further with insults. If you deny the angle, you must be actually schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.12801648]

>>12801464
LOL

[Anonymous No.12801649]

>>12801464
i love the casual why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.12801653]

>>12801643
>You are just complete imbesil
no u.
>and think differential geometry and theory of relativity to be in some kind of separate theories
No, you're pulling that out of your ass.
>Are you saying P. Harris' image in problematic?
No, I'm saying it's irrelevant to the problem you posed.
>you should be less in women studies
Why? I fucking love bitches!
>and study mathematics and logic
Oh, I did.
>I want you to
I want you to take your medicine.
>deny the angle
kek

[Anonymous No.12801663]

>>12801653
Laugh, fool. I laugh when I get my 10 million kronor.

[Anonymous No.12801688]

>>12799118
You WILL learn Quantum Mechanics!

[Anonymous No.12802608]

>>12801663
>no arguments
Yeah, thought so.

[Anonymous No.12803114]

Wait, so who was right?

What IS in fact the secant of the angle of the photon's trajectory in between the two electrons?

[Anonymous No.12803327]

>>12803114
You tell me...

[Anonymous No.12803389]

>>12803114
The answer is there's no such thing, since electrons don't just exchange a single photon, and it does not have a defined angle. It's also virtual.

[Anonymous No.12803500]

>>12803389
Are you like those cult member who kills themselves when their masters tells them to do, schizo? You have clear derivation of that angle and you are too blind to see the connection. Jesus. A fucking " virtual" photon. Holy hell.

[Anonymous No.12805356]

>>12803500
>Are you like those cult member who kills themselves when their masters tells them to do
No, what makes you think so? I'm not in a cult.
>schizo?
Only schizos ragingly call others schizo after they've been called out.
>You have clear derivation of that angle
Wrong. For the third time, two idealistic rigid bodies are not electrons. They behave completely differently, however often you repeat your nonsense won't change that fact.
>Jesus
I know it might seem like that to you, but I'm just Anon.
>A fucking " virtual" photon. Holy hell.
Yes:

[Anonymous No.12805365]

>>12805356
Forgot link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

[Anonymous No.12805553]

>>12805356
>>12805365
Then forget the electrons for a minute and start thinking the Einstein train and its triangles before you fool yourself any longer.

[Anonymous No.12805559]

And last time i checked we are formed by electrons.